Here are the two opinions and their syllabi: (1) In re S.L.J.
1. Although indigent Indian parents have the right under the Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 U.S.C. § 1912(b) (2006), to representation by court-appointed counsel in juvenile protection proceedings, in the absence of express statutory authority under Minn. Stat. § 611.14 (2008) indigent Indian parents do not have the right under either Minn. Stat. §§ 611.16 or 611.18 (2008), to the appointment of public defenders to represent them.
2. Under Minn. Stat. § 260C.331 (2008), the cost of court-appointed counsel to represent indigent Indian parents in juvenile protection proceedings is a charge upon the county in which the proceedings are held.
3. Under Minn. Stat. § 375.1691 (2008), a judicial order compelling the payment of county funds must be paid no later than the first fiscal year after the order is received by the county.
(2) In re J.B.
1. Although indigent parents, guardians, and custodians have the right under Minn. Stat. § 260C.163, subds. 3(a) and (b) (2008), to representation by court-appointed counsel in juvenile protection proceedings, in the absence of express statutory authority under Minn. Stat. ch. 611 (2008), indigent parents, guardians, and custodians do not have the right to the appointment of a public defender to represent them.
2. Under Minn. Stat. § 260C.331 (2008), the cost of court-appointed counsel to represent indigent parents, guardians, and custodians in juvenile protection proceedings is a charge upon the county in which the proceedings are held.
3. The district court did not err in holding the county in civil contempt for failing to obey the court’s order to pay in full the attorney fees of private counsel appointed to represent the indigent parents in juvenile protection proceedings.
4. Courts’ enforcement of statutory obligations imposed on counties does not violate the Separation of Powers Clause of the Minnesota Constitution.
Turtle Talk 